Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses Placerita Canyon easement vacation, seeks covenant to protect creek and wildlife corridor
Summary
Faced with resident objections about wildlife corridors, floodways and lack of information, the council excluded the easement vacation from the consent calendar and directed staff to return with draft restricted‑use language (including a roughly 100–120 foot buffer where appropriate) before any final vacating of street easements in Placerita Canyon.
Council members and residents clashed over a consent calendar request to vacate remnants of old street easements in Placerita Canyon before the council excluded the item from consent and asked staff to return with protective language.
Residents and the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association urged postponement, citing lack of transparency and concerns that vacating easements could jeopardize a natural floodway and a vital wildlife corridor that carries Placerita Creek under Highway 14. Speakers said easements shown on the staff map include areas where public right‑of‑way is effectively unusable and that more careful alignment and protective covenants are needed before the city extinguishes rights.
Property representatives said owners asked only for unused road segments to be returned, and that they do not currently propose development. The property representative told the council, “Give us the roads back,” urging the council not to impose permanent wildlife or floodway restrictions absent a future development review.
Staff engineers and the assistant city engineer recommended a middle path: the council can vacate portions of the easements that clearly have no public purpose and require a recorded restricted‑use covenant or similar instrument to preserve an appropriate buffer for the creek and wildlife corridor. Assistant city engineer Shannon Pickett said a restricted‑use area could protect flood and ecological values and noted a likely buffer on the order of about 100–120 feet where Fish and Wildlife and flood regulations would apply.
Council consensus: Councilmembers directed staff to prepare proposed restricted‑use covenant language and return the item rather than immediately vacating all easements. The item was removed from the consent calendar for further council review.
What to watch: Staff will return with draft language for council consideration that would aim to balance property‑owner rights and long‑term protections for the creek, wildlife corridor and flood management.
